v3371-531

• 11 -

sentence was stricken, without objection or further action by

appellants. The answer was unresponsive and concerned a

matter not placed in issue by the Government's case. Moreover,

the record shows that appellants explored fully with Snelson

his opinion as to the comparability of the sales.

1. The rulings on the instructions were well

founded. The district court instructed the jury that comparable

sales were the best evidence of value. This was clearly

correct, as was the instruction to assess the bases of an

expert's opinion in determining the weight to be assigned the

opinion. Objection to the latter was withdrawn by appellants.

Considered together, the instructions apprised the

jury of that part of appellants' proposed instruction which

was applicable to this case. The district court was not

obliged to give appellants' proposed instruction literally.

ARGUMENT

I

JURISDICTION OF THIS APPEAL IS LACKING BECAUSE

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS NOT TIMELY FILED

The time provision in 28 U.S.C. sec. 2107 and Rule

73(a), f .R.Civ. P. , supra, pp. 3-4, for the filing of

a notice of appeal from a district court judgment to a court

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3371

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3371

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3371#page/n530/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

2d, sales, property, government, discretion, br, cross, district, comparable, rhodes, appraisal, 1964, paid, institute, campbell

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

cert den., tract 104, wolfe petty, wilder boswell, proposed instruction, prop erty, sound discretion, single sentence, proposed sales, petty sales, livestock operation, fair market, comparable sales, appraisal services, 765 775

Document Status: UGLY